Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to say thank you to the distinguished assistant majority leader for his comments about my good friend and our loyal servant over so many years, both in the House and in the Senate, in the person of Dave Hoppe. The Senator from Kentucky has had a chance to watch him in our leadership meetings, to hear him and work with him, and get to know him as a human being. He is quite a guy.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a resume of Dave Hoppe's accomplishments. It is a very interesting record of not only achievement, but sacrifice for his country as well.

Also, I want to call attention to a 1997 USA Today article on Dave Hoppe which correctly called Dave the critical architect behind getting the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities in Education (IDEA) Act passed in 1997. The article recounts how much that act meant personally to Dave and his family, and particularly to his youngest son, who will benefit from this law in large part because he was also an inspiration for it. Gregory Hoppe is a special person, and the USA Today article, which Senator McConnell has already asked to be printed into the Record, recounts Gregory and Dave's and their family's remarkable story.

First, let me just comment on some interesting facts about Dave. While Dave Hoppe has worked for me off and on for over 27 years in the House and the Senate, he is not from Mississippi as you might expect. No, he is from Baraboo, WI, which happens to be the birthplace of the Ringling Brothers & Barnum and Bailey Circus and we have never let Dave forget that over the years.

He is a graduate of Notre Dame, class of 1973, which has made for some interesting kidding over the years about athletics, football, basketball, and bragging rights. But that is just the beginning of his impressive resume. He went on to study at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and received a master's degree in International Relations. As part of the Johns Hopkins Program in Advanced International Studies Dave spent the better part of a year in Italy. He also did foreign language coursework in Quebec City, Canada, under the auspices of the University of Laval.

Over his almost three decades in Washington, Dave has served several different Congressmen, Senators, and organizations, going way back to when he first came to Washington. From 1976 to 1978 he worked for the Republican Study Committee in the House of Representatives. He actually, for a while, had his own firm doing political research called Hoppe & Associates. Then he started his public service career in Washington that has covered an amazing number of professional experiences.

He returned to Capitol Hill in 1979 as the executive director of the House Republican Research Committee. Later he moved up to be administrative assistant to the Republican whip in the House when I had the pleasure of serving in that position. He also worked for me as the director of the Republican Platform Committee efforts in 1984 when I was chairman of the Platform Committee. In 1984 he went to work in the office of Congressman Jack Kemp as the chief of staff and of course was involved in his Presidential campaign in 1988. Dave then joined the Heritage Foundation where he served as a vice president. And then went to work in the Senate as the chief of staff for Senator Dan Coats of Indiana. In 1994, I was able to tempt him away from Senator Coats to work for me again as the chief of staff in my position as the Senate majority whip, then as the majority leader, and finally as the Republican leader.

In all, this outstanding individual and person has devoted 27 years to Congress and the American people.

Now, admittedly with some degree of trepidation I suspect, Dave is going out into the private sector--the real world--to provide for his two oldest children who are presently attending Notre Dame and for Gregory who I mentioned earlier. Anyone would be a little anxious about not knowing exactly what their new role will entail--and after the financial sacrifices over 27 years he probably will not know what to do with the extra money he will be earning in the private sector.

But I predict, as in everything else in his life, Dave will be more than successful, he will be superb at whatever endeavor he takes up next.

Far too often here, Senators take long, deep bows for our great public policy achievements and forget all the people who helped us get to that point: Our wives--in the case of Dave Hoppe, a wonderful lady named Karen--our families and mothers and fathers who helped raise us; our constituents who put us on their shoulders and turned an ugly frog into a prince; the elevator operators, the pages, the floor staff; and our personal staffs who work long and hard, helping write the speeches, helping draft the amendments, helping us regain our composure when we get a little out of control. Then, when they do move on, we forget to say just a simple thank you and to remind them that they made a difference in the course of history and in the course of America--in many cases, just as surely as any Senator ever did.

Dave Hoppe certainly can rest assured that he has made a great difference in this Government, in the Congress, the House, the Senate, in politics, in the study of government, and in America. But the best thing about Dave Hoppe is he believes strongly in his principles, his ideals, and his faith--in fact, that is how he met his wife Karen. They were carpooling, and as they were going to work, they found they shared a lot of common values and views of government and life. Three weeks later, they were engaged, and then married, and have had three wonderful children over the years.

So, yes, the best thing about Dave Hoppe is not his educational background, not his expertise, not his knowledge of the Senate, not all the things he has worked on--the best thing about Dave is the kind of human being he is. He is a man who cares deeply about his family and his country, and he has sacrificed mightily to help make a difference for his family and for the people of America.

I just wanted to take a few minutes, as Dave enters his last day or two in the Senate, to express my appreciation for his dedicated service and for all he has done, and to wish him great success in the future. But especially, I thank Karen and Katie, Geoffrey, and Gregory for sharing him with me and the country, and for the work they have done to help their father do the tireless work Dave has done in turn to make this nation a better place for all of us. I am delighted to have had an opportunity to ensure his efforts over the past three decades are properly recognized before he turns this page and enters the next chapter of his life.

I will be glad to yield to Senator Reid.

I thank the Senator from Nevada for his comments. He is right. At those countless meetings we had in the back of the Chamber, the center aisle, the cloakroom, or in our offices, Dave Hoppe was always there, committed to his philosophy and principles, but always equally committed to getting results for the Senate and for the nation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Craig for his leadership on this issue, and also Senator Baucus and Senator Crapo, and a number of others whose States are being severely impacted by very unfair Canadian softwood lumber practices.

Forestry is the second largest crop in my State of Mississippi and represents $1.25 billion annually. But what we are dealing with is the dumping of this Canadian softwood into our region of the country.

``Dumping'' is when a company sells a product for less than the cost of production. But the Department of Commerce currently does not consider countervailing duties, which offset subsidies, as a cost of production when evaluating and calculating the amount of dumping and the requisite antidumping duties. The Department's policy of ignoring these countervailing duties when calculating antidumping duties undervalues the amount of the dumping of the products.

Let me just say, I have been working on this issue actually for years now. I have worked with the previous administration and have been working with this administration. Our Customs officials have tried to be helpful. And certainly the current Secretary of Commerce has been paying close attention to this issue, and I really appreciate it. But there are limits to what they can do without additional legislation that will make it clear how we will deal with these countervailing duties. So that is why this legislation has been introduced.

I think we must have had 8 or 10 Senators who met with the Secretary of Commerce and other officials of Commerce and discussed this problem and its continuing impact on this major industry in my State and in our country, and talked about the need to take some further actions to make sure we are properly evaluating the product that is being dumped in the United States.

The United States-Canada softwood lumber dispute is one that has been going on a long time. And it is clear from information we have that the Canadian provinces are subsidizing their industry by providing lumber mills timber at prices that are 33 to 50 percent below market value. Our Commerce Department has found that Canadian companies have been selling lumber in the United States but below their subsidized cost of production, requiring an antidumping duty of 8.79 percent. The fair market value calculation currently undervalues the Canadian dumping practices by comparing a subsidized cost of production to the cost of United States lumber rather than comparing the subsidized cost of production plus the countervailing duty to the cost of United States lumber.

That is what this legislation would do. It would correct this by specifying that the CVD duties are to be treated as a cost of production, a clarification of U.S. statute section 19, U.S.C. 1677, which states that all duties should be considered a cost of production incurred on shipments to the United States. Such a change of Department policy is consistent with practices in the European Union and, as a matter of fact, of Canada.

The legislation, in my opinion, will have an immediate impact because with the correction of this problem, then, the Canadian mills will face the prospect of paying considerably higher antidumping rates if the lumber market remains at the current low level. So I think this is something we need to do.

I have met with Canadian officials, including the Prime Minister, the Ambassador, and Members of their Parliament. I had the impression that while they recognized this is an economic problem in the United States and unfair, they do not believe we are going to take the necessary action to really get a result. And they have been dragging it out now for years.

I am going to meet with some Canadian Government officials even tomorrow. I am sure this issue will come up. But once they realize we are serious--I believe this administration, this Commerce Department is serious--we are not going to allow them to sell this product at below production of cost, and that we are also going to include in that figure the cost figure, the countervailing duty orders, I think maybe they will understand that we have to deal with this problem.

Even today, bug kill timber is being sold at salvage prices in the interior of British Columbia, which has increased the amount of available timber already on the market. The price for this timber is as low as $1 per 1,000 board feet, when the competitive market value is over $100 per thousand board feet. That gives you some concept of the disadvantage with which our American softwood lumber producers are dealing. Our lumber industry is in a crisis. Make no mistake about it. We have been losing mills. The product value is down. Production is down. If the current market conditions continue, many of our remaining lumber manufacturers will not survive the next 6 months. This is a critical situation, and it is one that is going to get much worse if we don't get some action quickly.

The U.S. lumber industry supports the Department's changed circumstances process. Therefore, I think this is a solution we can all work on. As a member of the Finance Committee, along with Senator Baucus, who also serves on the Finance Committee, we will make sure this legislation receives the consideration it deserves.

We urge our colleagues in the country that is one of our two or three best friends in the world, Canada, to work with us on this. This is an unfair situation, one that has been going on too long, one that is destroying an important part of our economy. I hope our Government will vigorously pursue the litigation that is now being considered. The WTO has already found that Canada has an actionable subsidy, meaning these duties will be imposed until provinces allow the market to determine the price of timber. Our Government should continue to pursue it.

Our Canadian friends and allies should work with us because this is a very unfair situation, one we are trying to remedy by making sure all of the costs of production, including the countervailing duties, are included in their calculations.

I congratulate Senator Craig for his leadership in this area, and I look forward to working with him in the future as we come forward with a proper solution to this critical issue.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Craig for his leadership on this issue, and also Senator Baucus and Senator Crapo, and a number of others whose States are being severely impacted by very unfair Canadian softwood lumber practices.

Forestry is the second largest crop in my State of Mississippi and represents $1.25 billion annually. But what we are dealing with is the dumping of this Canadian softwood into our region of the country.

``Dumping'' is when a company sells a product for less than the cost of production. But the Department of Commerce currently does not consider countervailing duties, which offset subsidies, as a cost of production when evaluating and calculating the amount of dumping and the requisite antidumping duties. The Department's policy of ignoring these countervailing duties when calculating antidumping duties undervalues the amount of the dumping of the products.

Let me just say, I have been working on this issue actually for years now. I have worked with the previous administration and have been working with this administration. Our Customs officials have tried to be helpful. And certainly the current Secretary of Commerce has been paying close attention to this issue, and I really appreciate it. But there are limits to what they can do without additional legislation that will make it clear how we will deal with these countervailing duties. So that is why this legislation has been introduced.

I think we must have had 8 or 10 Senators who met with the Secretary of Commerce and other officials of Commerce and discussed this problem and its continuing impact on this major industry in my State and in our country, and talked about the need to take some further actions to make sure we are properly evaluating the product that is being dumped in the United States.

The United States-Canada softwood lumber dispute is one that has been going on a long time. And it is clear from information we have that the Canadian provinces are subsidizing their industry by providing lumber mills timber at prices that are 33 to 50 percent below market value. Our Commerce Department has found that Canadian companies have been selling lumber in the United States but below their subsidized cost of production, requiring an antidumping duty of 8.79 percent. The fair market value calculation currently undervalues the Canadian dumping practices by comparing a subsidized cost of production to the cost of United States lumber rather than comparing the subsidized cost of production plus the countervailing duty to the cost of United States lumber.

That is what this legislation would do. It would correct this by specifying that the CVD duties are to be treated as a cost of production, a clarification of U.S. statute section 19, U.S.C. 1677, which states that all duties should be considered a cost of production incurred on shipments to the United States. Such a change of Department policy is consistent with practices in the European Union and, as a matter of fact, of Canada.

The legislation, in my opinion, will have an immediate impact because with the correction of this problem, then, the Canadian mills will face the prospect of paying considerably higher antidumping rates if the lumber market remains at the current low level. So I think this is something we need to do.

I have met with Canadian officials, including the Prime Minister, the Ambassador, and Members of their Parliament. I had the impression that while they recognized this is an economic problem in the United States and unfair, they do not believe we are going to take the necessary action to really get a result. And they have been dragging it out now for years.

I am going to meet with some Canadian Government officials even tomorrow. I am sure this issue will come up. But once they realize we are serious--I believe this administration, this Commerce Department is serious--we are not going to allow them to sell this product at below production of cost, and that we are also going to include in that figure the cost figure, the countervailing duty orders, I think maybe they will understand that we have to deal with this problem.

Even today, bug kill timber is being sold at salvage prices in the interior of British Columbia, which has increased the amount of available timber already on the market. The price for this timber is as low as $1 per 1,000 board feet, when the competitive market value is over $100 per thousand board feet. That gives you some concept of the disadvantage with which our American softwood lumber producers are dealing. Our lumber industry is in a crisis. Make no mistake about it. We have been losing mills. The product value is down. Production is down. If the current market conditions continue, many of our remaining lumber manufacturers will not survive the next 6 months. This is a critical situation, and it is one that is going to get much worse if we don't get some action quickly.

The U.S. lumber industry supports the Department's changed circumstances process. Therefore, I think this is a solution we can all work on. As a member of the Finance Committee, along with Senator Baucus, who also serves on the Finance Committee, we will make sure this legislation receives the consideration it deserves.

We urge our colleagues in the country that is one of our two or three best friends in the world, Canada, to work with us on this. This is an unfair situation, one that has been going on too long, one that is destroying an important part of our economy. I hope our Government will vigorously pursue the litigation that is now being considered. The WTO has already found that Canada has an actionable subsidy, meaning these duties will be imposed until provinces allow the market to determine the price of timber. Our Government should continue to pursue it.

Our Canadian friends and allies should work with us because this is a very unfair situation, one we are trying to remedy by making sure all of the costs of production, including the countervailing duties, are included in their calculations.

I congratulate Senator Craig for his leadership in this area, and I look forward to working with him in the future as we come forward with a proper solution to this critical issue.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I, too, rise in opposition to this amendment and support the funds that are provided in this section of the energy and water appropriations bill for the Yazoo Backwater Pump Project. I thank the committee for the time they spent on this project and for the funds they provided. Actually, they have a lot of knowledge about this project because it is not new.

Let me take a minute to add a few points to the very good points my colleague, the senior Senator from Mississippi, already made. First of all, the Great Flood of 1927 that hit the Mississippi Delta covered 27,000 square miles, killed more than 500 people, and left 700,000 people homeless.

In response to this event and because water from 41 percent of the United States drains through the Delta--I was listening to the discussions about the Devil's Lake project in North Dakota and thinking that the drainage begins way up there, but it all winds up down in this funnel-like area of the Mississippi Delta. Being aware of that, Congress passed the Flood Control Act of 1929 making flood protection in the Mississippi River Valley a Federal responsibility.

The Yazoo Pump Project was actually authorized in 1941 as a part of this overall effort. So, you see, this is not something that hasn't been considered and worked on for years and years. The point was made earlier that the Corps of Engineers hasn't finished its review. I wonder, how long does it take? Year after year, these people who live in this area are threatened with floods, as are their homes and businesses and hospitals, as the Senator pointed out. It is a very dangerous situation.

This pump actually will protect 1,000 homes--not just a few rich farmers, as has been alleged, but 1,000 homes, and includes, very importantly, the reforestation of over 62,000 acres currently in agricultural production.

This is a win-win situation. It protects the people from flooding while restoring large amounts of land to natural habitat. I thought that was what we should be trying to do.

This is a project that is being moved forward very carefully. The funding here is slightly short of $15 million. So it is being done incrementally and in a way that will include the ability to improve this natural habitat.

This pumping plant, by the way, is not unique. There are currently 15 similar plants in operation throughout Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi within 200 miles of the Yazoo pump. In fact, the W.G. Huxtable Pump in Arkansas is almost the same size as the Yazoo but drains only half the acreage of the Yazoo. The Yazoo will protect 2.6 million acres, while the Huxtable plant drains only 1.3 million acres.

This project has bipartisan support from Democrats such as Congressman Bennie Thompson, who has been there and looked at the damage and the threat to the people. He supports this project, as do Democratic State elected officials.

Aside from that type of statistic, I think the most important thing is the human side of this. Year after year--and it is almost every year that people have water in their homes. You cannot believe what it is like. I was looking at some of the pictures being shown earlier with the Devil's Lake project. We can show you the same type of pictures from Mississippi--people with sandbags around their houses and the water is up above the porch level. These are hard-working, mostly poor people in this area of the Mississippi Delta--five counties right down at the end of the funnel, really.

By the way, in most of these counties, the African-American population is the majority--the lowest is 54 percent, up to as much as 71.8 percent. The delegation Senator Cochran referred to who came to see us was led by Ms. Ruby Johnson of Cary, MS. She met

with us to talk about these projects. She had a delegation of five. All five of them were African Americans who literally were concerned about being able to continue to live there. They were talking about how their kids have left the Delta and can't come back. They cannot attract businesses and industry because of, among other things, the threat of the flooding year in and year out. They told us stories about having to put their children in boats to take them to school when the water is rising. They told us of fearing snakes, which find their way into their homes after the waters recede.

The Federal Government has made a promise to these good people. This project has been delayed, analyzed, and criticized in the media. Special interest groups are saying it is not being done in an environmentally sound way. It is. A project like this one which will provide flood protection while restoring thousands of acres to its natural habitat should be held up as a model for future environmental projects.

I urge defeat of this amendment and support of the Yazoo Backwater Pump. If we don't, we are going to end up with five counties in this area that will have no people and no opportunity for a decent living, or any kind of business, or economic development. We can have all of these in this area if only we keep the promises first made by the federal government over 70 years ago. The people of the Mississippi Delta have waited long enough.

So I appreciate the opportunity to speak, and I plead for my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding this time.

I understand what the Senator from Pennsylvania is trying to do here, but I am concerned that the Finance Committee has not had a chance to look into this issue, the impact on the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Neither has the Commerce Committee. I am also concerned about the precedent that is being set here.

It is a rifleshot for one company. The other companies would like to have this same opportunity, perhaps. They are all involved in this Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. It may be permissive, as was pointed out, I believe, by the Senator from Virginia. But if this company, US Airways, does not make it in the end, as I understand it, the other companies that pay into this benefit plan will be responsible for covering the losses. Whether or not that is accurate, I am not positive what the impact would be. So that has been my concern, as I expressed to the Senator earlier today.

It may have some merit. We may even want to look at setting this precedent. But I don't think we have yet fully thought it through, and I am concerned we may be making a mistake here that could cause tremendous additional damage to the rest of the aviation industry.

I am going to be working with Senator McCain, Senator Hutchison, and Senator Rockefeller on this issue this year. We need to take a serious look at aviation as a whole, not only the airlines but labor, obviously--their needs. How we deal with their pensions, what we do about security, the costs they are faced with. It is going to take some time to do this. To do this one rifleshot at this time, I would have to raise questions about it.

I would like to be able to work with the Senator from Pennsylvania because I know how committed he is to doing the right thing for the men and women who work for this company, but I express my reservation at this time on this bill.